Carolina JournalRAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

“I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”

It is unclear whether the school was allowed to charge for the cafeteria lunches they gave to every preschooler in the class that day.

The state regulation reads:

“Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.

“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”

Still, Kozlowski said, the parents shouldn’t have been charged.

“The school may have interpreted [the rule] to mean they felt like the lunch wasn’t meeting the nutritional requirements and so they wanted the child to have the school lunch and then charged the parent,” she said. “It sounds like maybe a technical assistance need for that school.”

The school principal, Jackie Samuels, said he didn’t “know anything about” parents being charged for the meals that day. “I know they eat in the cafeteria. Whether they pay or not, they eat in the cafeteria.”

In my opinion, the insanity is with the policy itself- it was only exacerbated by a mildly overzealous enforcement in this case. As a parent, I really do not want or need the state inspecting, literally, what I feed my kid for lunch and handing down an approval or disapproval of my choice.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The insanity is in both the policy and the implementation of it. Why do we even need such a policy? Agreed that many kids could/should eat healthier, etc...but it sure isn't the job of the government/schools/anyone else to tell me how to feed my child.

It seems that, if you take public schooling as a given (I understand some here may debate that), then there's a state interest in requiring at least a minimally adequate meal to support the learning process and environment. But it seems like this can be dealt with better on a case by case basis, without having to inspect and approve or modify lunches brought from home. It might require a little more attention to other behaviorial issues, but eliminating the lunch inspectors might free up some resources.

but it sure isn't the job of the government/schools/anyone else to tell me how to feed my childBut would you agree that, at some point, it is their job? Are you free to not or only sporadically feed your child? Are you free to serve your child alcohol or special brownies? What about a diet of twinkies and Coke?

No, I would not. Now, if we got into the territory of "sporadically or not feeding my child", then that would be on border with child neglect/abuse - so in that sense, there is a requirement to report, etc - same could be said with alcohol, etc - thats illegal. I don't think we can equate twinkies, cokes, or brownies with the aforementioned. The school system is designed for parents who cannot adequately afford to feed their kids a lunch - they provide it for free or at a reduced rate. So, that kinda negates the "sporadically or not feeding" aspect.

then there's a state interest in requiring at least a minimally adequate meal to support the learning process and environment. Are you arguing that that's what this policy is intended to do? Because I think that's a bit of a lawyerly stretch. I think some busybody thinks kids should eat their fruit and vegetables, and since they have a captive audience, by God, kids in public schools are going to eat their fruits and vegetables.I would say that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning process and environment. That does not provide the state with a license to preemptively impose a host of requirements on parents/children that are arguably connected with that legitimate goal somehow. If a kid is somehow disrupting that environment or can't take part in the learning process, and there's reason to believe it's because of a poor diet, that can and should be legitimately dealt with on an individual basis.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

What about vegetarians? Gluten free diets? Lactose intolerant kinds? Replacing a kids lunch with their school lunch could result in a tummy ache or worse if the child doesn't normally, or can't consume certain foods.

Good intentions, but its bullshit.

--------------------------------------- Awww, Katy's not all THAT evil. Only slightly evil. In a good way. - JasoninHalifax

then there's a state interest in requiring at least a minimally adequate meal to support the learning process and environment. Are you arguing that that's what this policy is intended to do? Because I think that's a bit of a lawyerly stretch. I think some busybody thinks kids should eat their fruit and vegetables, and since they have a captive audience, by God, kids in public schools are going to eat their fruits and vegetables.I would say that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning process and environment. That does not provide the state with a license to preemptively impose a host of requirements on parents/children that are arguably connected with that legitimate goal somehow. If a kid is somehow disrupting that environment or can't take part in the learning process, and there's reason to believe it's because of a poor diet, that can and should be legitimately dealt with on an individual basis.

I don't know for certain what the policy is about, but I suspect promoting a positive learning environment is part of it. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the genesis of school lunch programs. That's not inconsistent with a "busybody" aspect creeping in over time.

No, I would not. Now, if we got into the territory of "sporadically or not feeding my child", then that would be on border with child neglect/abuse - so in that sense, there is a requirement to report, etc - same could be said with alcohol, etc - thats illegal. I don't think we can equate twinkies, cokes, or brownies with the aforementioned.

So, in other words, you agree that there are limits to parents' abilities to decide what to feed their children. A parent's right ends when it crosses the line into abuse, understanding there may be disagreements over what constitutes abuse.

When a parent chooses to send his or her child to public school (I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here), does the school have any say greater say (beyond the abuse standard) over what the child eats while at school? For example, can it prohibit certain items if it feels those are disruptive?

But it seems like this can be dealt with better on a case by case basis The problem is that if you're going to deal with everything by a "Case by Case" basis then there is no need for the policy. IF there is no need for the policy then you must accept that some are going to feed a "Healthy lunch" and others will not.

Either you have a "Controlled system" or you don't. Look at this case as an example. First, how do you even find out that a child is eating a Twinkie and a Coke unless someone is reporting or inspecting? Poof, reporting and inspection policy. Then how and on what basis do you decide "Preference" of food and "Preference" to level of "What is healthy".The second you decide "What's healthy" you then have a policy. Poof, guidelines that can't be broken.

Now of course you could say "These are only guidelines, you don't have to follow them"...but then you're right back to people eating Twinkies and Coke if they want to and you still have inspectors but they have no teeth and are just wasting money.

So in this case you had guidelines. You only had one of two choices, follow them, or not. If you're not going to follow them and enforce them then they no longer become guidelines but suggestions. If you ok bypassing the guidelines for a case that is "Somewhat healthy" who is going to draw the line on how and when to draw the line for a "Not so healthy" lunch? What conditions? What if it's a special occasion?

This is of course the problem with any legislative policy. If you can't create a policy and say "Under all circumstances this must be followed", then more than likely that piece of legislation shouldn't be implemented at all because there will ALWAYS be acceptions....IMHO.

In terms of legal/illegal, yes, of course...matter of fact, as a citizen, if I see anything illegal/abusive/etc, I think I have the duty to report such. As far as the school having a say in what the child eats at school...no, I do not. I don't know what food a child could eat that would cause disruption or impair a learning environment, but if that were the case, then yes, in the same way it controls disruptive behavior. Thats comparing apples to oranges in this context, though. At that point, it is effecting other students.

The feature that I find most objectionable is the fact that they can add or replace items at their discretion, then charge the parent for it. Isn't that basically the same thing as forcing one to participate in a school sponsored health plan? You either pay for the healthy meal, or we will force you pay for the healthy meal.

When did school lunch get so complicated? I remember some of the mystery food that we ate when I was in school. By midday, I was so hungry I would've eaten roadkill. In hindsight, I probably ate roadkill. "The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

I really think you are lawyering this thing to death, but I'll play a little longer.

So, in other words, you agree that there are limits to parents' abilities to decide what to feed their children. A parent's right ends when it crosses the line into abuse, understanding there may be disagreements over what constitutes abuse.

Yes, but: This is a different tack than arguing that the state has an interest in maintaining an adequate learning environment. And I don't think parents are obliged to prove that they aren't abusing their children. That is, I think it's possible that a poor diet (a VERY poor diet) might cross the line into neglect that's actionable on the part of the state. I do not believe that justifies requiring all parents to prove that they're providing a healthy diet to their kids by way of lunch inspections. And it does not justify the state mandating that parents must provide lunches that meet the FDA guideline, or whatever it was. When a parent chooses to send his or her child to public school (I understand "choose" may be a loaded word here), does the school have any say greater say (beyond the abuse standard) over what the child eats while at school? For example, can it prohibit certain items if it feels those are disruptive?

Not generally, in my opinion. "If the school feels a food item is disruptive" is a pretty vague and meaningless term. I think a school would be justified in prohibiting food items that pose a danger to other students, if that applies at a school- peanuts, if some kid is allergic, maybe.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."